For today though it is that intelligence question which turns out, like most things liberals say, to be presumed and unfounded.

Quote:

This liberal assumption that a candidate can be just too darn smart to win a presidential election in this country goes back to Adlai Stevenson.

What proof was there of Gores alleged gravitas? How exactly did the media know that Gore was so smart and Bush so dumb? In fact, the record did not indicate any of this was true. It was often alleged, probably with reason, that Bush only got into Yale because his father had gone there and his grandfather had been a Connecticut senator. Yet Gore, with high school Bs and Cs (his only As were in art), got into Harvard in part because (like other politicians sons, including a raft of Kennedys) his father was a famous senator. At Harvard, Gores grades did not improve. In his sophomore year he earned a D, a C-minus, two Cs, two C-pluses and one B-minus. He was in the bottom fifth of his class his first two years in school. Later he flunked out of divinity school (failing five of his eight classes) and dropped out of Vanderbilt University Law School. Gore was once asked (after having served in the U.S. Senate for several years) to name his favourite president. President Knox, he replied.

Quote:

Howell Raines, former executive editor of The New York Times, explained during the election that it was quite obvious that Bush was a dim bulb in contrast to Kerry: Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? Im sure the candidates SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead.
Fact checking was apparently not necessary for Raines. Though at the time, of course, no one could actually check because Kerry kept refusing to release his transcripts from Yale, or any information about intelligence tests that he would have taken as a Navy officer............

Then a Navy veteran named Sam Sewell noticed something on the Kerry campaign Web site. In one of the documents posted on the Web page, an obscure military report offered a cryptic score that was actually the result of an IQ-like qualifying test Kerry had taken in 1966. As it happened, George W. Bush had taken the same test just a few years later. Columnist Steve Sailer determined that Bushs score put him in the 95th percentile, giving him an IQ in the 120s. Kerrys score was slightly lower, putting him in the 91st percentile...................

After Bush won re-election, it became clear why Kerry hadnt wanted to release his college records. The Boston Globe discovered that Bush actually had higher grades at Yale and also had higher SAT scores. (Bushs scores were also higher than those of Senator Bill Bradley, another liberal often described as learned and brilliant.)

I've had to save the best for last of course...

Quote:

Professor Bruce Fleming, a self-professed liberal, explains this liberal attitude perfectly. All of us are ignorant of many things. Its just that the liberal here thinkss he knows what the conservative is ignorant of.

This sublime confidence in their own superiority leads to a closed-minded insistence that liberals know what is right. Scholars at Stanford, the University of Illinois and Williams conducted four studies on the subject of asymmetric insight. Basically, this is the notion that some people claim to know more than others. Surveys were conducted with hundreds of students. Among their findings: Liberals are much more likely to believe that their knowledge of conservatives and their arguments surpasses that of conservatives themselves. The results were similar when it came to the abortion issue. Abortion rights advocates claimed to have greater knowledge and insight than those who are pro-life.

Liberals claim to know your information better than you, and your own motivations better than you. They claim to know where and how you got your information, what you are going to do with it, and why you read it in the first place.

As usual, it turns out they are wrong. The pedestal is really not even a stair step and might even the cellar thanks to their own closed minded insistence on ignoring reality. When their closed minds lead to bad conclusions, election losses and the always popular unintended consequences it is always because of "dirty tricks." Any investigation into these tricks often turn up evidence of wrong doing, but it is the liberals doing it. They are the ones handing out crack or cigarettes, slashing van tires, or raising the dead to vote.

So for my liberal friends, when I encounter this attitude from you yet again, I'll try not to feel to bad for you. Your cognitive bias due to your illusion of asymmetric insight is actually a handicap that should earn my pity. It must be hard being so wrong and then in the end being so paranoid and conspiratorial to explain away the false conclusions.

So I'll bare with you. I'll be forgiving of your tantrums and profanity laced tirades. You probably can't help yourself since you are saddled with the inability to see beyond your own nose while believing you have better than average eyesight.

You see, we're not just wrong -- but stupid, dishonest, and evil. That's what passes for a "dialogue" and being "multiculturally sensitive." P.Z. Myers' latest call to desecrate the Eucharist is a good example of this.

This could explain why, around here anyway, I find liberals resorting to name calling, insults and especially questioning their opponent's intelligence, mental faculties and even sanity.

More than once I've seen "retard", "moron", multiple variations on "ass" (e.g., "asshat", "ass clown", asshole") thrown out (by more than one poster). And I'm only counting those directed specifically at another poster. But there are also those commonly referring to Bush or McCain (uhh...I mean "McInsane" or "McStain" or "McStupid").

More than once I've seen phrases like "warped mental state of mind" or "seriously mental and sick" thrown out.

And yet, there appears to be no moderation whatsoever.

Personally I think infractions given out by moderators should be made public too.

if yew do not fitt in the onlie brakest thay can undastand then for shoor yew will fynd yorself at the bottum of a big hol wiv bofe the 'librals' and 'consurvativs' pissin on yew....

of cors, one will piss from the left syde and one from the rite -but it's wen eever ov them taykes a shit that yew reelley want to wurry thow coz wen thay start to tork shit (witch is a lot ov the tyme) then thay doo it from the sayme playce and it is hedded in onlie won direkshun....

This could explain why, around here anyway, I find liberals resorting to name calling, insults and especially questioning their opponent's intelligence, mental faculties and even sanity.

More than once I've seen "retard", "moron", multiple variations on "ass" (e.g., "asshat", "ass clown", asshole") thrown out (by more than one poster). And I'm only counting those directed specifically at another poster. But there are also those commonly referring to Bush or McCain (uhh...I mean "McInsane" or "McStain" or "McStupid").

More than once I've seen phrases like "warped mental state of mind" or "seriously mental and sick" thrown out.

And yet, there appears to be no moderation whatsoever.

Personally I think infractions given out by moderators should be made public too.

Well, it's true. Liberals are vile, arrogant, lying, treasonous, bitter, debased, amoral, licentious, communist fascist socialist totalitarian monsters, we can all agree, but the thing that really makes them extra contemptible is that they call people names.

Also? Very, very hypocritical.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

or perhaps the arguments conservatives use aren't based on facts, but rather, emotional senses about the way things work. the style of arguing is very different between liberals and conservatives. to a liberal, facts are everything, to a conservative, a sense of rightness is everything. only one of these styles of arguing with the world would result in claims that the person arguing knows more than their opponent. it'd be interesting to see if conservative feel better about issues they support than liberals.

of course, it's all a big joke because feelings of this sort aren't fundamental to the person, but intelligence (in reality, here, not intelligence, but senses of factual correctness) is fundamental. my personal take on all of this is that the emotional basis of conservative arguments (fairness, morality, virtue, etc) isn't so self-chosen...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

or perhaps the arguments conservatives use aren't based on facts, but rather, emotional senses about the way things work. the style of arguing is very different between liberals and conservatives. to a liberal, facts are everything, to a conservative, a sense of rightness is everything. only one of these styles of arguing with the world would result in claims that the person arguing knows more than their opponent. it'd be interesting to see if conservative feel better about issues they support than liberals.

Like when Dawkins makes Freshman "who created God?" philosophy mistakes, Michael Moore edits entirely for effect, and P.Z. "it's just a fracken cracker" Myers calls for desecrating the Eucharist? Those are your leaders -- and that's coin-of-the-realm behavior for all of them.

You guys on the Left might find the occasional Coulter or Savage to cite, true, but the general level of foul-mouthedness, and bile has no comparison. You search until you find a Westborogh Baptist Church, then ignore the mainstream, and use the former as an excuse to turn on the F-bomb machine.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Well, it's true. Liberals are vile, arrogant, lying, treasonous, bitter, debased, amoral, licentious, communist fascist socialist totalitarian monsters, we can all agree, but the thing that really makes them extra contemptible is that they call people names.

Also? Very, very hypocritical.

All the neocon artist buttnuggets float to the top here in PO. and guess what? It really stinks up the place just of like a pig farm, and on a really bad day the downwind stench is palpable on a global scale. Seriously.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Like when Dawkins makes Freshman "who created God?" philosophy mistakes, Micheal Moore edits entirely for effect, and P.Z. "it's just a fracken cracker" Myers calls for desecrating the Eucharist? Those are your leaders -- and that's coin-of-the-realm behavior for all of them.

You guys on the Left might find the occasional Coulter or Savage to cite, true, but the general level of foul-mouthedness, and bile has no comparison. You search until you find a Westborogh Baptist Church, then ignore the mainstream, and use the former as an excuse to turn on the F-bomb machine.

Just love the name calling, since most stuff from the right is nonsensical or you make up things from you own Private Idaho.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

You know, I think I have to agree. We liberals are both arrogant and wrong almost all the time. In fact, I'm having difficulty coming up with an example of a liberal (including myself) being both humble and correct. Or being EITHER humble OR correct.

Good one, Nick! We should all work on that.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

I am so not wanting to be a liberal anymore. I have seen the errors of our ways. There that should cure me from calling people on the right names. But I still get to call people on the left names. Those bastards. K-K-K-ool!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

All the neocon artist buttnuggets float to the top here in PO. and guess what? It really stinks up the place just of like a pig farm, and on a really bad day the downwind stench is palpable on a global scale. Seriously.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Like when Dawkins makes Freshman "who created God?" philosophy mistakes, Michael Moore edits entirely for effect, and P.Z. "it's just a fracken cracker" Myers calls for desecrating the Eucharist? Those are your leaders -- and that's coin-of-the-realm behavior for all of them.

You guys on the Left might find the occasional Coulter or Savage to cite, true, but the general level of foul-mouthedness, and bile has no comparison. You search until you find a Westborogh Baptist Church, then ignore the mainstream, and use the former as an excuse to turn on the F-bomb machine.

See... You are offended, an emotional response, by the liberal attacks. If you were at all in your head, these things wouldn't be as baiting or appalling to you... It's not that we, both conservatives and liberals, cannot make arguments in the other's styles, it's that by doing so, we are far more effective at angering the other side which is exactly what the people you cite are trying to do...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

See... You are offended, an emotional response, by the liberal attacks. If you were at all in your head, these things wouldn't be as baiting or appalling to you... It's not that we, both conservatives and liberals, cannot make arguments in the other's styles, it's that by doing so, we are far more effective at angering the other side which is exactly what the people you cite are trying to do...

I don't think so, I don't tend get all that fired up. And I can talk about Intelligent Design without F-carpetbombing or using the term "Lair", etc.

Potty Mouth!! Potty Mouth!!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

For today though it is that intelligence question which turns out, like most things liberals say, to be presumed and unfounded.

I've had to save the best for last of course...

Liberals claim to know your information better than you, and your own motivations better than you. They claim to know where and how you got your information, what you are going to do with it, and why you read it in the first place.

As usual, it turns out they are wrong. The pedestal is really not even a stair step and might even the cellar thanks to their own closed minded insistence on ignoring reality. When their closed minds lead to bad conclusions, election losses and the always popular unintended consequences it is always because of "dirty tricks." Any investigation into these tricks often turn up evidence of wrong doing, but it is the liberals doing it. They are the ones handing out crack or cigarettes, slashing van tires, or raising the dead to vote.

So for my liberal friends, when I encounter this attitude from you yet again, I'll try not to feel to bad for you. Your cognitive bias due to your illusion of asymmetric insight is actually a handicap that should earn my pity. It must be hard being so wrong and then in the end being so paranoid and conspiratorial to explain away the false conclusions.

So I'll bare with you. I'll be forgiving of your tantrums and profanity laced tirades. You probably can't help yourself since you are saddled with the inability to see beyond your own nose while believing you have better than average eyesight.

I'll be there to wipe away your tears.

Gosh Trumpy I don't think any liberal could touch you for the sheer amount of arrogance on top of being wrong about so much.

If you want profanity laced tirades I suggest you look at some of SDW's more colorful posts.

If PO is a good cross section of what conservatives are all about then one could only conclude that the right has lost it's way and deevolved ( yes I know they don't believe in that ) into wingnut cases and stick in the muds. Never questioning their way of thinking. And wanting the rest of us to accept their way of thinking only. All of this in the light of a moutain of evidence to the contrary.

It's called denial.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Gosh Trumpy I don't think any liberal could touch you for the sheer amount of arrogance on top of being wrong about so much.

If you want profanity laced tirades I suggest you look at some of SDW's more colorful posts.

If PO is a good cross section of what conservatives are all about then one could only conclude that the right has lost it's way and deevolved ( yes I know they don't believe in that ) into wingnut cases and stick in the muds. Never questioning their way of thinking. And wanting the rest of us to accept their way of thinking only. All of this in the light of a moutain of evidence to the contrary.

It's called denial.

follows this:

Quote:

to a liberal, facts are everything,

So, jimmac, tell us: What specifically has trump been wrong about so often?

------

Speaking of intelligence:

Quote:

If PO is a good cross section (word choice error...try "..is representative") of what conservatives are all about (comma needed) then one could only conclude that the right has lost it's (it's stands for "it is," not possession) it's way and deevolved ( yes I know they don't believe in that ) into wingnut cases and stick in the muds (sticks in the mud is what you meant..not that it makes sense). Never questioning their way of thinking. (<--not a complete sentence) And wanting the rest of us to accept their way of thinking only. All of this in the light of a moutain of evidence to the contrary. (<--not a complete sentence)

Liberal intelligence. It's a wonderful thing.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

The same things you have. Unless of course you'd like to reply to certain questions that have previously been put to you.

I mean what's it been a month or two?

This is of course in the context of " facts ".

I'll answer anything you like. Don't expect me, however, to recall a question you asked two months ago. Some of us have lives in the real world. As for trump, "the same things you have" is not going to do it. I want a list.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I'll answer anything you like. Don't expect me, however, to recall a question you asked two months ago. Some of us have lives in the real world. As for trump, "the same things you have" is not going to do it. I want a list.

My question ( and yes you do remember ) was about your statement that Bush had stated before the war that there was a danger that Saddam would hand off his nonexistant WMD to a terrorist for the purpose of attacking us here in the U.S.
This was in the context of reasons to go to war with Iraq.

My question ( and yes you do remember ) was about your statement that Bush had stated before the war that there was a danger that Saddam would hand off his nonexistant WMD to a terrorist for the purpose of attacking us here in the U.S.
This was in the context of reasons to go to war with Iraq.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Let's see you argue with a direct transcript, dated October 7th 2002.

You Lose.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Thank you! It only took you 2 months to respond. Now you could do yourself a favor and respond to the other questions on the page I linked to.

By the way I don't lose. We all lost because the WMD that Bush was so sure existed didn't. And yes when we go back over the facts you can see the evidence was questionable at best. Many did question it. Bush just wasn't listening.

If this was one of the main reasons for going it was a war fought for nothing.

Remember to address that other page.

I believe it involved the idea that there was direct evidence that Iraq was trafficing with said terrorists that might obtain these WMD from Saddam.

The actual questions go back several pages before the one I linked to.

So come on SDW you're so sure of all of this it should be easy for you to provide the data or facts. Just like you did for me.

I guess this was also part of the original bone of contention. A post made by midwinter.

You're thanking me for making you look like an dolt? Oh wait, no. This is always how you respond. When you're proven totally and spectacularly wrong, you claim you really just wanted to see if I would go get the evidence. That's a crock, of course.

Quote:

It only took you 2 months to respond.

And it took me about five seconds to find. As I said, some of us have lives. I didn't respond because I was living mine.

Quote:

Now you could do yourself a favor and respond to the other questions on the page I linked to.

I'm not going to root through the page and decipher your incoherent ranting. If you have more "questions" you'd like me to school you on, just ask.

Quote:

By the way I don't lose

Yeah, you really did. You claimed it wasn't true, and it was. You were wrong. I was right. Therefore, you lose.

Quote:

We all lost because the WMD that Bush was so sure existed didn't.

OK, fair enough. But what about all the others who were also so sure? What about some of you favorite Democratic congressmen who also voted for the war? Why do they get off scott free? And tell me...what of the 500 tons of yellowcake urnaium we took out of Iraq a few weeks ago?

Quote:

And yes when we go back over the facts you can see the evidence was questionable at best. Many did question it. Bush just wasn't listening.

That post is dumb. My position remains unchanged. I favor a timetable for withdrawal. I wanted to see troops come home this year. To some extent that is happening. midwinter likes to pretend I've changed my position, but I have not. I'm not sure what he wants me to do...perhaps he wants me to start crying and screaming about what a war criminal Bush is because it's not happening as fast as I'd like?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You're thanking me for making you look like an dolt? Oh wait, no. This is always how you respond. When you're proven totally and spectacularly wrong, you claim you really just wanted to see if I would go get the evidence. That's a crock, of course.

And it took me about five seconds to find. As I said, some of us have lives. I didn't respond because I was living mine.

I'm not going to root through the page and decipher your incoherent ranting. If you have more "questions" you'd like me to school you on, just ask.

Quote:

Yeah, you really did. You claimed it wasn't true, and it was. You were wrong. I was right. Therefore, you lose.

OK, fair enough. But what about all the others who were also so sure? What about some of you favorite Democratic congressmen who also voted for the war? Why do they get off scott free? And tell me...what of the 500 tons of yellowcake urnaium we took out of Iraq a few weeks ago?

So the lives of our servicemen and women have been wasted then? There have been no positive outcomes at all?

No. Ask and I will answer.

No, no, silly jimmac. You're moving the goal posts. You won't get away with that here.

I think you mean "to which I linked." As I said, I'm not hunting through them, only to be accused of ignoring the ones you want answered. Post the "questions" and I will answer them.

That post is dumb. My position remains unchanged. I favor a timetable for withdrawal. I wanted to see troops come home this year. To some extent that is happening. midwinter likes to pretend I've changed my position, but I have not. I'm not sure what he wants me to do...perhaps he wants me to start crying and screaming about what a war criminal Bush is because it's not happening as fast as I'd like?

That post was dumb? I guess they're right. You come in answer what you like and scuttle away like a crab.

We post questions and you answer after two months? The point is SDW you're wrong about most things and when you're backed up against the wall you run.

Quote:

And it took me about five seconds to find. As I said, some of us have lives. I didn't respond because I was living mine.

And two months to post.

Quote:

Yeah, you really did. You claimed it wasn't true, and it was. You were wrong. I was right. Therefore, you lose.

Yes you won that battle but concerning the bigger question you lost the war. There were no WMD.

Quote:

That post is dumb. My position remains unchanged. I favor a timetable for withdrawal. I wanted to see troops come home this year. To some extent that is happening. midwinter likes to pretend I've changed my position, but I have not. I'm not sure what he wants me to do...perhaps he wants me to start crying and screaming about what a war criminal Bush is because it's not happening as fast as I'd like?

[/QUOTE]

That isn't the way it read to me. You said even you'd be angry. But you're doing the same thing you've always done.

Quote:

No, no, silly jimmac. You're moving the goal posts. You won't get away with that here

So what you're saying it was just hearsay from Bush?

Quote:

OK, fair enough. But what about all the others who were also so sure? What about some of you favorite Democratic congressmen who also voted for the war? Why do they get off scott free? And tell me...what of the 500 tons of yellowcake urnaium we took out of Iraq a few weeks ago?

That's uranium not urnanium! Sounds pretty nasty though!
The congressmen aren't at the top. Bush is so he's responsible. But I know you'll never get that.

While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.

Not much of a WMD. Also this doesn't validate the Niger story.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

But I must, DMZ! I am a liberal (although closer to a lefty), and therefore I am wrong about everything. I am arrogant. I am wrong.

Or, in other words, fuck off you stupid bastard.

But Nick is absolutely right. Liberals are just wrong, wrong wrong. And I am a liberal, and therefore I am wrong. About pretty much everything.

Well then, take comfort that you tossed a veritable Jane Austen molotov cocktail into my daughters', wife's, and their friend's literary lives. You've turned them to the Pink Side, you toss-nozzle bastard!

Damn liberals.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...